Action Against The Government Of Italy

The political history of Italy is quite extensive. The Greeks were the first to settle in Italy and established colonies in the southern part of the country and in Sicily. There was not a sense of political reality as much as there was a civilization (Windows on Italy- History). While the Greeks controlled the south the Gauls, or Celtic people, ruled the north and the Po Valley. But the most important group to settle in Italy was the Etruscans. Because of their advanced civilization, the Etruscans were the only ones to establish political and cultural ideas before the Roman Empire (Windows on Italy- History). At the end of the Etruscans rule, Rome began a unification of Italy and established Latin to be the general language (Defusco).

After being separated since the fall of the Roman Empire and acting as only “a geographic expression,” Italy finally underwent the process of unification and succeeded in 1870. For hundreds of years, Italy was ruled under city-states, therefore the peninsula was unable to form a unified nation. However, through several political leaders, such as Giuseppe Mazzini and Camillo Cavour, helped manifest the Italian unification process to success in the 19th century. As Italy struggled for unity and national identity in the period circa 1830-1870, contrasting viewpoints emerged on what type of government should rule over the peninsula, with options such as a republic, papacy, or not unifying at all.

The Italian Unification was a political and social movement where the different states of the Italian peninsula were to combine into a single Italy. The Italian Unification occurred close in time to the German Unification, which occurred only one year later. The Unification of Italy was a widely controversial topic discussed by many italian citizens and leaders during the 19th century. Many people destined for Italy to be unified as one country, a country that they considered to be stronger overall when compared to the individual countries, and would also create a new national identity and rid Italy of civil problems, like wars and revolutions that were occurring at the time. Others despised the ideas of Italian Unification, jumping ahead

There are two types of direct effect: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal direct effect is between private individuals, where ‘if a provision of EU law has horizontal direct effect it can be enforced by an individual in a national court’ . Indirect effect is that where ‘obligation on national courts to interpret national law consistently with EU law’. It may be used where the directive is incapable of horizontal direct effect. State liability can overcome the limitations of direct and indirect effect, it ‘provides a right to damages where a Member State has breached EU law, causing loss to the applicant.’

On the present case being addressed to the International Court of Justice in dealing with the matter of sovereignty over the Island of Manca, the issue of legality belonging to which side of the parties at dispute is put forward. The problem however, lies in, the period at which the dispute took place, for International law has not evolved at that time unlike in this day and age.

This remedy may occur in a situation where an employee’s actions are deemed to have contributed to the loss of employment, but their dismissal was still considered unfair in the circumstances. This occurred in Christopher Toms v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd as the commission found, before the appeal into his reinstatement occur, that he should incur some penalty for breach of the policy he was not awarded his lost wages.

“…judicial and legislative developments *have+ made the *infringement+ procedure [come] of age- from a rarely used, opaque and policy-driven procedure, it has now become a common, fairly transparent and highly technical procedure.” Prete & Smuldres “The coming of age of infringement proceedings” (2010) 47 CMLR 9 Has the infringement procedure finally “come of age”? Critically outline the key features of the Article 258 TFEU procedure and relevant caselaw. Article 258 TFEU (Formerly Art 226 EC) empowers the European Commission to deliver a reasoned opinion to a member state when it considers that the state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties. The action seeks to “fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty” and to “obtain a

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law has been established over the course of more than five decades. It is a principle that was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1964, and it has continued to have a rich history in the jurisprudence of the ECJ and national constitutional courts. As the ECJ and national courts attempt to define their respective realms of influence, a bright debate has sparked regarding constitutional pluralism. Moreover, the recent codification of primacy in the Constitutional Treaty has led to a new debate on the scope of the supremacy of EU law.

Before the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) reforms, the rules on requiring standing have been restrictive in cases where the claimant isn 't being specifically addressed by the measure in question. An individual would be required to establish ‘direct and individual concern’ to challenge any EU acts not addressed to them. This has created a large barrier to private parties who are affected by government measures, but who are not specifically mentioned in the government/EU measures. Despite criticism of

Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

This question concerns non-fiscal barriers to the free movement of goods in the European Union. Issues concerning Articles 34,35 or 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are raised and Brian’s potential claim is against France as the Member State who has enacted measures which may restrict imports and exports, thereby violating the Treaty.

However again this higher status can be seen as limited as is only assumed from a written obligation. Therefore to asses if supremacy is not the challenge to member state sovereignty that is appears to be, a close analysis of how the CJEU has dealt with the issue of supremacy of EU law in case law is needed, firstly looking at Van Gend en Loos which stated that the ‘EU was a new legal order permanently limiting the sovereign rights of the Member State’. This customs case helped establish the ‘relationships between the European Union and international law…to grantee that the rules of one system are complied with in another legal order ’ showing in practise that if on a national level EU law is breached CJEU will take supremacy and comply with ‘the integrity of the EU legal order’ . Further evaluation of the limits of the supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa V ENEL where ‘Italy had claimed that the EU treaties…had been transposed into the Italian legal order by national legislation, which could therefore be derogated by subsequent national legislation. The court rejected this presumption of the supremacy of national law by insisting on the supremacy of EU law’ . This case holds significance as it ‘is well-known since Costa V ENEL the court has affirmed the supremacy of Community law over national law’ strongly suggesting the continued existence of EU supremacy is not frequently

Doing business in Italy is very different than in the United States. “Set to move onto a slow, but steady, path of economic growth;” Italy, at first glance, seems to be a promising business environment with projected increases in GDP per capita in the coming years, according to Business Monitor International (“Italy Autos Report” 30). However, there are many cultural, administrative, geographic and economic differences that make the business environment much different than that in the US. Generally dominated by domestic carmakers, mainly Fiat S.p.A., the auto industry in Italy doesn’t look very appealing for new firms because of the high barriers to entry. However, foreign carmakers like Ford have managed to penetrate the Italian

instability, as the nation tried to re-create the social bonds broken by the war and